Martin v Scribal Pty Ltd [1956] UKPCHCA 3

Martin v Scribal Pty Ltd [1956] UKPCHCA 3

The grant of a patent for an invention different from that described and claimed in the original specification is not permitted by the Act; such disconformity provides a lawful ground of objection at the time of acceptance, and is available as a ground of revocation. The commissioner’s acceptance is not final where a substantive statutory objection exists.

Parties
Appellant: Henry George Martin; Respondent: Scribal Proprietary Limited
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
18 June 1956
Procedural Posture
Appeal / On Appeal From the High Court of Australia
Outcome
appeal dismissed with costs
Legal Topics
Patent Specification Amendments, Grounds for Patent Revocation, Effect of Amendments in Patent Office, Disconformity Between Specifications
Intellectual Property Patents Patent Specification Amendments Grounds for Patent Revocation Effect of Amendments in Patent Office Disconformity Between Specifications

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Henry George Martin

Appellant

Scribal Proprietary Limited

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / On Appeal From the High Court of Australia

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the grant of a patent for an invention different from that described and claimed in the original specification is permitted under the Patents Act 1903-1950
  2. 2 Whether disconformity between the original and accepted specifications is a lawful ground of objection or revocation
  3. 3 Whether acceptance by the commissioner precludes an objection based on disconformity

Ratio Decidendi

The grant of a patent for an invention different from that described and claimed in the original specification is not permitted by the Act; such disconformity provides a lawful ground of objection at the time of acceptance, and is available as a ground of revocation. The commissioner’s acceptance is not final where a substantive statutory objection exists.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed with costs

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs.